You are still assuming evolution. If you are looking at diverse species and comparing sequences, you could comment on a ‘sequence similarity’ and build from there. But instead you are then commenting on “sequence conservation” which is assuming the process of evolution between species.
Baloney. You don't have to assume evolution in order to measure sequence conservation. It's an observation, not a conclusion. When you align these genes from different species you will see more differences in the introns than in the exons. THAT'S THE OBSERVATION. This isn't observed because someone assumes evolution.
Earlier you referred to exons being conserved and introns not being conserved, that “This is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution and common ancestry are true.“ Why would evolution expect that? Why would it expect to retain one part of the genome and not another.
I already explained it in the previous post:
"There is very little, if any, sequence in introns that has sequence specific function. Therefore, they accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. However, the exons do have sequence specific function, so deleterious mutations that occur in exons will be selected against which leads to sequence conservation. The more distant the common ancestor the larger divergence you will see between exons and introns, just as we see."--Me, Message 377
It's in the very paragraph where you pulled the quote from.
It wasn’t meant to explain the differences with evolutionary distance, because I am not assuming evolutionary relationships.
The differences are still there.
We could phrase the question differently if you like.
Why are there more differences in the introns than in the exons when we compare the same gene across any two species?
Why is this observation more exaggerated when we compare human and mouse genes than when we compare human and macaque genes?
Introns, from what we currently know, do not code for proteins. With no need for representing the same building blocks across different life forms, there is no need for them to be necessarily homologous.
Then why are the sequences so similar between humans and other primates?
Why are there so many more differences between human and mouse introns than between human and macaque introns?
If they were created through common design, why change them at all? Why not use the same introns? Why change the introns more than the exons?
A common design explanation might have a necessary or advantageous purpose for them per differing life forms, but the expression of that purpose would not be the same between differing life forms. For example, introns might do purpose-’A’ for one particular lifeform’s building blocks, but for a different life form it would need to do purpose-’B’ for the same building blocks. Thus they would not need to be the same (conserved) between different life forms.
They might???
If you can't present evidence as to why introns would be required to be more different than the exons then you just have something you made up on the spot.
You didn’t show anything above to dissuade Common design. You merely declared that it doesnt explain.
Common design doesn't explain it, as shown by your made up scenarios.
The problem with your quote on parsimony is that 1) I am not necessarily claiming a supernatural explanation, and 2) your “observed natural mechanisms” have not been “found sufficient to explain the observed effects”.
1) Baloney.
2) Please show why the combined mechanisms of vertical inheritance, random mutation, and natural selection would not be capable of producing the patterns that are seen in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
It wasn’t meant to be. It merely is showing that introns have a number of purposeful uses.
All of them? Or just a few? Does this function go away if you change the sequence?
I wouldn’t think with evolution that something that is not conserved (or as you later say in on example is being removed by evolution) would find an increased and diverse usage in younger life forms.
You haven't shown that there is an increase in usage or diverse usage. You also haven't addressed the issue of sequence specific function. There is no reason to conserve sequence if the sequence doesn't matter. If the only usage is as bulk DNA/RNA then the sequence is free to accumulate mutations through neutral drift without conservation.
The length of introns in yeast is probably irrelevant. But I would expect yeast to have fewer and/or shorter introns comparable to humans, considering yeast is single-celled and humans are multi-celled organisms. This (again) is under the idea the introns are not coding for proteins, but do have other information (purpose) tied to those proteins which may be differing between organisms.
Why would you expect this? Why not have short introns in humans?
Why they are not the same in yeast as in humans, from a common design explanation, is easy to say. Because introns have different purposes in yeast genes vs human genes.
Where is the evidence for this claim? Please show how the difference in function requires a different sequence.
In response to the thoughtful remarks from Dr Jack, Taq, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, AZPaul3, Omnivorous, Tangle, kjsimons, and Percy.
The repetition of comments (on both sides ) in this string has been noted several times, and there has been too much distraction from the important topic. So it will help to rein in the racket and tighten things up by going back to the original topic: The Standard Definition of Evolution.
Turns out there a quite a few out there, and, near as I can determine, the overall concurrence between them can be summed up thusly:
Evolution (ToE) is: • Descent with modification, from minor changes within a species population, to the proliferation of many species from a common ancestor. • Random modifications, but influenced by environment through natural selection.
Outside the scope of Evolutionism: • Identification of the baseline ancestor(s). • The origin of life.
Seems to be somewhat in dispute: • Is there a single common ancestor, or multiple?
My comments on evolution have been derided as irrational, medieval, f------ b---s---, etc., yet in the same derisive entries there is admission that within ToE there is tentativeness, underdetermination, not enough information, sparse fossil record,…
This indicates a not-so-negligible uncertainty, particularly when coupled with some of the things that evolutionism seems to spend very little, if any time addressing: 1. Why is man so exponentially beyond all the other’s in the survival-of-the-fittest department? 2. How do features like eyeballs develop, if the process is random and imperceptibly gradual, and the eyeball requires many systems to function? How do the in-between mutations make it through natural selection? (yes, this is a repeated point, but it was not answered to any satisfaction) 3. (& many other examples like the two above) 4. Why can’t the original ancestor(s) be identified? 5. Did life as we understand it spring forth from minerals/stardust, or did it come from something else.
If so much is known about DNA, and if there is so much confidence in declaring direct descendance between the fossils of ancient creatures up through Man, then there should be some pretty good theories on all of the above, along with general concurrence among evolutionists.
I suspect it is difficult to put together a compelling explanation for most of these without refencing some kind of directed intervention. The original ancestor item, in particular, emphasizes ToE’s lack of completeness-resolution.
Finally, I did take some time to look at nested hierarchies. These are virtually identical to the product offerings of a diversified manufacturer of, say, power tools-appliances-outdoor equipment. Products are broken down into categories and sub-categories with each category/sub-category sharing functional and component commonalities, with as much component and function sharing across the product population as possible, partly for efficiency but mostly because if you come up with a good feature you want to apply and re-use it as much as possible.
Much like a Creator would do with life here on Earth! 4 limbs, not 1, 3, or 5, is ideal, 2 eyes to perceive depth, 2 ears to determine direction, et al., and one with a super brain to subdue and have dominion over all the others in maintaining an ordered Creation. (and, yes, this is repeated but it bears repeating)
Wow, no kidding, after all this, the “truth of evolution”. The Bible is the word of God, and God’s word is Truth, therefore the Bible is Truth. And this is probably the most common answer to “What is the Bible?” – “The Bible is Truth.”
So now is proclaimed the evolutionist’s ability to look beyond what is demonstrably known, beyond the tentativeness, beyond the uncertainty, beyond science, into that pure, unwavering belief, known as faith, to declare evolution truth.
And comparing today’s Christians to the Inquisition is absurd and evokes desperation. Even those who loathe Christians know this. If you met someone in a dark alley, if you had someone pull up behind you when your car is broken down by the side of the road, if you wronged someone and then found yourself hoping for forgiveness, you’d be very glad to find out that someone is a Bible-following Christian.
The bible is the word of man. Every single word in the bible is written by men. If it had been written by some kind of god, it probably wouldn't be so full of mistakes, lies and reprehensible behaviour. It would also contain some form of knowledge not available to iron age people.
Amazing how your standard of evidence falls from the impossibly high when talking about stuff we understand and have 'proof' of to subterranean low when talking of your superstitious beliefs.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Evolution (ToE) is: • Descent with modification, from minor changes within a species population, to the proliferation of many species from a common ancestor. • Random modifications, but influenced by environment through natural selection.
Congratulations, you've repeated what you were told in post #2.
Outside the scope of Evolutionism: • Identification of the baseline ancestor(s). • The origin of life.
'baseline ancestors' is not a scientific term. If you mean tracing the ancestors of modern species back through time, then that is very much inside the scope of evolution. We do it through the fossil record, molecular biology and embryology.
Evolution is concerned with the diversification of species once life started. It's very interested in abiogenesis, but it is not dependent on it.
This indicates a not-so-negligible uncertainty, particularly when coupled with some of the things that evolutionism seems to spend very little, if any time addressing:
This is just bullshit. There is no uncertainty about the fact of evolution.
I suspect it is difficult to put together a compelling explanation for most of these without refencing some kind of directed intervention. The original ancestor item, in particular, emphasizes ToE’s lack of completeness-resolution.
More bullshit. It's like the last 600 hundred posts never happened. Not a single thing has entered your head.
Finally, I did take some time to look at nested hierarchies. These are virtually identical to the product offerings of a diversified manufacturer of, say, power tools-appliances-outdoor equipment. Products are broken down into categories and sub-categories with each category/sub-category sharing functional and component commonalities, with as much component and function sharing across the product population as possible, partly for efficiency but mostly because if you come up with a good feature you want to apply and re-use it as much as possible.
You've been shown why this is not true, yet you continue to say it. Why? Could it be that you have some powerful internal reason for dismissing any and all arguments that embarrass those beliefs?
And by the way, most biologists would say the most successful organism on our planet are microorganisms, not H. sapiens.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
In the creationists, we have seen the worst of the worst of deceivers.
But you are at least presenting us with some semblance of sincerity, despite your continued refusal to tell us just what the actual fuck you mean by your perpetually undefined yet most highly significant terms like, evolutionist, evolutionism, etc.
Do you not understand the term, dog whistle? You create an undefined term which is designed to elicit a visceral response from your followers against those undefined/misdefined terms .
For example, a woman who quite literally wrote the book -- or at the very least a book on "WOKE", yet in a TV interview was completely unable to even begin to define what "WOKE" is supposed to be. The very only single thing she got right in that interview was that it would become viral.
What is an "evolutionist"? Nobody knows, since you refuse to define it.
What is "evolutionISM"? Nobody knows, since you refuse to define it.
And yet you continue to use those very terms THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVER DEFINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You hypocritically clutch at your pearls over our direct language, but the fact still remains that you still refuse to answer our most basic question:
What the ACTUAL FUCK are you talking about??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Seriously, what the ACTUAL FUCK does it take to get your attention in order to get an actual answer from you?
If you really actually want to understand the difference between common ancestry and common design, please take 10 minutes to watch this.
It covers your power tool analogy using the more familiar creationist trope of cars.
It's far better than anything I could write here
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Einstein once said, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” We see an example today where some see the authority of the Bible as sufficient for rejecting the truth of evolution.
Wow, no kidding, after all this, the “truth of evolution”. The Bible is the word of God, and God’s word is Truth, therefore the Bible is Truth. And this is probably the most common answer to “What is the Bible?” – “The Bible is Truth.”
So now is proclaimed the evolutionist’s ability to look beyond what is demonstrably known, beyond the tentativeness, beyond the uncertainty, beyond science, into that pure, unwavering belief, known as faith, to declare evolution truth.
I should have provided more context. The Einstein quote is from his 1901 letter complaining that Paul Drude, editor of Annalen der Physik, had dismissed his criticisms of Drude's theory of metals. The word "truth" is being used in a scientific context, meaning based upon evidence and rational argument. There's a couple other possible translations:
"Blind obedience to authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
"Authority gone to one's head is the greatest enemy of truth."
My message was about reliance upon authority. When I said "truth of evolution" I was using "truth" in the same way as Einstein, as a scientific theory supported by evidence yet still tentative. My use of the word "truth" was intended for consistency with Einstein's vocabulary, not to redefine how I think of evolution.
And comparing today’s Christians to the Inquisition is absurd and evokes desperation.
And yet that's not what I did. I compared misplaced contemporary Christian respect for Biblical authority to that of the Inquisition. They believed upon Biblical authority that the Earth did not move. They were mistaken. You believe upon Biblical authority that evolutionary theory is wrong. You are making a mistake of the same form as the Inquisition.
I'm trying to persuade you to abandon your reliance upon authority and instead place it upon evidence from the real world. I am not trying to persuade you to give up your faith. Despite the Inquisition's certainty that the Earth did not move, it is possible to keep your faith while simultaneously believing the Earth moves. And it is also possible to keep your faith while simultaneously believing that the diversity of life resulted from evolution.
The whole idea is that God speaks through Man. The problem is that Man does the final editing!
I really liked your last post, Percy. We have Faith and we have Evidence. Two different concepts yet philosophically interlinked.
We should never throw away evidence to defend Faith nor should we throw away Faith and seek only Evidence for the sake of humanity.
Percy, I also liked what you said 16 years ago, before closing ICANTS thread then.Message 405
Percy:When I originally began this site I intended that debate threads should close with an assessment by the moderator. As things have worked out most threads do not have any consistent moderation (I never imagined that there would be so many simultaneously active threads), and I haven't really moderated this thread though I think I've read all of it, but in any case, I'd like to offer an assessment. One of the most wonderful qualities of the Internet is venues where those who want to learn can ask questions. It isn't uncommon to have the good fortune to find someone who knows a great deal about what you want to know, and that is certainly true of this thread, whose participants included a couple true cosmological experts and several sufficiently competent amateurs given the level of this discussion. Those asking the cosmological questions could have learned a great deal, and perhaps they even did, no way to be sure at this point, but what this thread makes clear is that you can only explain something to someone who already believes it is true. If they believe it is false then they'll find every excuse and opportunity to avoid reaching an understanding. But this practice isn't unique to those approaching science from a spiritual perspective, it is also true of the reverse, as we often see when science minded folks ask Christians about the Trinity. So the problem becomes how do you explain something to someone who doesn't believe it and only wants to disprove it? We can argue that one doesn't have to accept it, just understand it, but this turns out not to be so easy to do, for anyone from either side of this debate.
Evolution (ToE) is: • Descent with modification, from minor changes within a species population, to the proliferation of many species from a common ancestor. • Random modifications, but influenced by environment through natural selection.
"Descent with modification" is how Darwin described it. "Changes in allele frequencies over time" is another popular description.
Outside the scope of Evolutionism: • Identification of the baseline ancestor(s). • The origin of life.
It is impossible to determine if any fossil is the direct descendent or ancestor of any other fossil or living species. We need DNA for that determination which is available for young fossils (e.g. Neanderthals). It's not outside the scope of evolution to determine ancestry, it just happens to be impossible with certain data sets. However, scientists do conclude that some fossil species would be closer to a common ancestor than others due to their physical features.
The origin of life is completely outside the scope of evolution. If the first life was created by God and life evolved from there then not one word of the theory of evolution would need to be changed.
yet in the same derisive entries there is admission that within ToE there is tentativeness, underdetermination, not enough information, sparse fossil record,…
Every theory in science is tentative and incomplete. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. This is an example of the anti-science attitude we are talking about. It's not that you are reluctant to accept the theory of evolution but are derisive of the scientific method itself.
1. Why is man so exponentially beyond all the other’s in the survival-of-the-fittest department?
You haven't shown that we are exponentially beyond all others. I think we would still lose a sprint against a cheetah, as one example.
How do features like eyeballs develop, if the process is random and imperceptibly gradual, and the eyeball requires many systems to function? How do the in-between mutations make it through natural selection? (yes, this is a repeated point, but it was not answered to any satisfaction)
Darwin already did a great job of explaining this.
quote:
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class. --Chalres Darwin, "Origin of Species" note: Articulata is the old name for mollusks
Your question was already well answered 170 years ago. We can find numerous examples of transitional states in living species. It shows how these intermediate steps are viable.
Finally, I did take some time to look at nested hierarchies. These are virtually identical to the product offerings of a diversified manufacturer of, say, power tools-appliances-outdoor equipment. Products are broken down into categories and sub-categories with each category/sub-category sharing functional and component commonalities, with as much component and function sharing across the product population as possible, partly for efficiency but mostly because if you come up with a good feature you want to apply and re-use it as much as possible.
That's completely false. For example, let's look at the distribution of power sources. You can have power drills and a circular saws as sub-categories. You will see that one power drill will have batteries and one will have a cord. The same for the circular saw. This is a violation of a nested hierarchy. If you categorized the tools by the distribution of batteries then you should get the same categorization that you get using other features, but this isn't the case. There are many, many features in tools and appliances that violate a nested hierarchy. You would understand this if you understood what a nested hierarchy is.
We can also see how this applies to life. You have three middle ear bones: incus, malleus, stapes. So why not use this adaptation elsewhere? Why not use this arrangement in birds, for example? Instead, those three middle ear bones are only found in animals that lactate. Why? Why not reuse it?
Humans have a backwards facing retina. In fact, all animals with a backbone have a backwards facing retina. However, cephalopods like octopus and squid have a forward facing retina. So what is going on? Why not reuse the forward facing retina or the backwards facing retina? Why limit the use of the backwards facing retina to animals with a backbone? Suffice it to say, your idea of re-use doesn't match what we are seeing in biology.
Much like a Creator would do with life here on Earth! 4 limbs, not 1, 3, or 5, is ideal, 2 eyes to perceive depth, 2 ears to determine direction, et al., and one with a super brain to subdue and have dominion over all the others in maintaining an ordered Creation. (and, yes, this is repeated but it bears repeating)
I guess you never heard of insects, or arachnids that have more than 2 eyes? Or mollusks that have hundreds of eyes?
George Romanes refuted common design 140 years ago
This is a hefty quote that would have bogged down earlier posts, so I will give it a post of its own:
quote:
Thus, even if we confine our attention to a single structure, how wonderful are the modifications which it is seen to undergo, although never losing its typical character! How are we to explain this? By design manifested in special creation, or by descent with adaptive modification? If it is said by design manifested in special creation, we must suppose that the Deity formed an archetypal plan of certain structures, and that He determined to adhere to this plan through all the modifications which those structures exhibit. Now the difficulties in the way of this supposition are prodigious, if not quite insurmountable. In the first place, why is it that some structures are selected as typical and not others? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for instance, be tortured into every conceivable variety of modification in order to make it serviceable for as great a variety of functions; while another structure, such as the eye, is made in different sub-kingdoms on fundamentally different plans, notwithstanding that it has throughout to perform the same function? Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in the case of the skeleton the Deity has endeavoured to show His ingenuity by the manifold functions to which He has made the same structure subservient; while in the case of the eye He has endeavoured to show his resources by the manifold structures which He has to subserve the same function? If so, it appears to me a most unfortunate circumstance, that throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the same typical structure to the performance of widely different functions, are cases which come within the limits of the same natural group of plants and animals, and therefore admit of being equally well explained by descent from a common ancestry; while all cases of widely different structures performing the same function are to be found in different groups of plants or animals, and are therefore suggestive of independent variations arising in the different lines of hereditary descent. --George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
Romanes wrote this 140 years ago, and it perfectly explains why a nested hierarchy refutes common design. As K.Rose said earlier, a common designer would reuse designs wherever they make sense, but this isn't what we see in biology. In biology, adaptations stay on a branch of the tree of life and are not reused elsewhere even if they could be used on those other branches.
No designer is limited in such a way. There is no reason that a common designer of mammals and birds would be kept from creating a species with a mixture of mammal and bird features. Why can't mammals have feathers or flow through lungs? Why can't birds lactate or have three middle ear bones? Why can't fish have forward facing retinas like the octopus around them? Why can't whales have gills? None of this makes sense from a common design point of view since a common designer is not limited to a tree-like structure for shared and derived features. Only common ancestry and evolution are limited in such a way, and we see the very pattern that we would expect from this process.
So it will help to rein in the racket and tighten things up by going back to the original topic: The Standard Definition of Evolution.
Turns out there a quite a few out there, and, near as I can determine, the overall concurrence between them can be summed up thusly:
Evolution (ToE) is:
Descent with modification, from minor changes within a species population, to the proliferation of many species from a common ancestor.
Random modifications, but influenced by environment through natural selection.
Your understanding of evolution is improving. What you've got here is sort of okay, you're getting there.
Outside the scope of Evolutionism:
Identification of the baseline ancestor(s).
The origin of life.
You second point is correct, that the origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution, but your first point deserves clarification. All the evidence for evolution supports common ancestry and therefore a LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), so if that's what you mean by "baseline ancestor(s)" then "baseline ancestor(s)" are part of the theory of evolution.
But there was life before LUCA, and Tangle has alluded to a time when life was just self-replicating molecules freely sharing their codes, which is called horizontal gene transfer. There were no true species and no clear lines of descent.
Seems to be somewhat in dispute:
Is there a single common ancestor, or multiple?
Online resources about evolution seem to have little doubt that there was a single common ancestor (LUCA), but some here question that. There seems far too little evidence to conclude that out of this self-replicating soup of molecules that there was only one descendant line that survived until today, and the archaea branch of life still engages in a great deal of horizontal gene transfer, making it impossible to create distinct species categories for many of them, just like pre-LUCA life is surmised to have been.
My comments on evolution have been derided as irrational, medieval, f------ b---s---, etc., yet in the same derisive entries there is admission that within ToE there is tentativeness,...
The principles of science can be difficult to cement in one's head, and one of them is tentativity. It is a principle across all science, not just evolution. We've said this many times.
...underdetermination, not enough information, sparse fossil record,…
You're repeating these positions without qualification as if they hand't already been discussed and analyzed.
This indicates a not-so-negligible uncertainty, particularly when coupled with some of the things that evolutionism seems to spend very little, if any time addressing:
Why is man so exponentially beyond all the other’s in the survival-of-the-fittest department?
Why do think this?
How do features like eyeballs develop, if the process is random and imperceptibly gradual, and the eyeball requires many systems to function?
The eye has been at least mentioned in seven previous messages. Your habit of characterizing topics already discussed as if nothing had been explained and analyzed about them is why you keep drawing some of the treatment you complain about. You could have followed what you said here with, "Now I know it's been explained that...etc..." and continue on to describe the problems you had with the explanations and analysis, but you don't. It feels dishonest.
How do the in-between mutations make it through natural selection? (yes, this is a repeated point, but it was not answered to any satisfaction)
You mean to *your* satisfaction. I recall it being explained not once but multiple times. We stand ready to continue explaining this for as long as you find it helpful.
Why can’t the original ancestor(s) be identified?
I'd like to be constructive and helpful, I really would, but my honest reaction is, "Seriously?"
I could explain this again, but I'd just be repeating the same things we've already said multiple times that were obviously not accepted or understood. This leads me to suspect that doing it again would not be time well spent.
Did life as we understand it spring forth from minerals/stardust, or did it come from something else?
This is an origin of life issue, but to the extent we gave answers in this thread the answers haven't changed. We don't know much about the origin of life. There are hypotheses.
If so much is known about DNA, and if there is so much confidence in declaring direct descent between the fossils of ancient creatures up through Man, then there should be some pretty good theories on all of the above, along with general concurrence among evolutionists.
There is an exceptionally widespread consensus among biologists that evolutionary processes produced the diversity of life we see today, including Homo sapiens. No additional theories are necessary. Occam's razor.
I suspect it is difficult to put together a compelling explanation for most of these without referencing some kind of directed intervention. The original ancestor item, in particular, emphasizes ToE’s lack of completeness-resolution.
You're again restating your original premise. We've been through all this. It's like you just joined the thread.
Finally, I did take some time to look at nested hierarchies. These are virtually identical to the product offerings of a diversified manufacturer of, say, power tools-appliances-outdoor equipment.
It's like the discussions we've had about this with you never happened.
Try this. Take the leaf-blower power tool and explain how gas and electric models fit into a nested hierarchy of gradual change. Explain how the exact same gas engines and electric motors can appear in models from different manufacturers in a nested hierarchy. Explain how the exact same electric leaf blower model might have different electric motors in a nested hierarchy? Explain how the exact same gas leaf blower model can have spark plugs from different manufacturers in nested hierarchy.
Products are broken down into categories and sub-categories with each category/sub-category sharing functional and component commonalities, with as much component and function sharing across the product population as possible, partly for efficiency but mostly because if you come up with a good feature you want to apply and re-use it as much as possible.
This is the opposite of a nested hierarchy. The exact same headlight bulb might show up in a Ford and a Chevy, but the exact same eye never shows up in a mammal and a cephalopod.
AbE: The previous sentence used to say "fish" in place of "cephalopod". Taq pointed out the mistake.
Much like a Creator would do with life here on Earth! 4 limbs, not 1, 3, or 5, is ideal, 2 eyes to perceive depth, 2 ears to determine direction, et al., and one with a super brain to subdue and have dominion over all the others in maintaining an ordered Creation. (and, yes, this is repeated but it bears repeating)
Your limb argument ignores non-mammals and the huge variety of number of limbs (and no limbs) across all life. Presumably a Creator could do anything. Your argument for 4 limbs makes no sense, not in a Creator context nor in an evolutionary context.
but the exact same eye never shows up in a mammal and a fish.
Not sure if this is a typo, but both mammals and fish have versions of the vertebrate eye. I guess it depends on the version of "exact" one is using.
quote:Fish eyes are similar to the eyes of terrestrial vertebrates like birds and mammals, but have a more spherical lens. Birds and mammals (including humans) normally adjust focus by changing the shape of their lens, but fish normally adjust focus by moving the lens closer to or further from the retina. Vision in fish - Wikipedia
quote:
Evolution (ToE) is: • Descent with modification, from minor changes within a species population, to the proliferation of many species from a common ancestor. • Random modifications, but influenced by environment through natural selection.
The Most of the way there, but most evolution is the cumulative effect of minor changes and natural selection sieves the various random modifications that turn up, enabling cumulative change to add up to more.
quote:
Outside the scope of Evolutionism: • Identification of the baseline ancestor(s). • The origin of life. Seems to be somewhat in dispute: • Is there a single common ancestor, or multiple?
The origin of life is outside the scope of evolutionary theory while identification of the first life is marginal.
quote:
Seems to be somewhat in dispute: • Is there a single common ancestor, or multiple?
De-ends on what you mean. There may well be a single Last Universal Common Ancestor, but beyond that we’d have to guess.
quote:
… there is admission that within ToE there is tentativeness, underdetermination, not enough information, sparse fossil record,…
It is funny that someone who claims not to be anti-science is objecting to evolution because it is science.
quote:
This indicates a not-so-negligible uncertainty, particularly when coupled with some of the things that evolutionism seems to spend very little, if any time addressing
There is no such thing as “evolutionism” - and there is more out there than you know.
quote:
1. Why is man so exponentially beyond all the other’s in the survival-of-the-fittest department?
That is obvious- it’s our development of technology in the broad sense. Technology enabled the Polynesians to people the Pacific. Technology is the reason that the Inuit can survive in the Arctic. Technology supports the production, distribution and storage of food, supporting a vast population- beyond anything possible without it.
quote:
2. How do features like eyeballs develop, if the process is random and imperceptibly gradual, and the eyeball requires many systems to function? How do the in-between mutations make it through natural selection? (yes, this is a repeated point, but it was not answered to any satisfaction)
The eyeball doesn’t require many systems, the stages are filtered by natural selection which is also how the intermediate stages survive.
quote:
Why can’t the original ancestor(s) be identified?
For the same reason that we can’t identify exactly what Alexander the Great had for breakfast on his 7th Birthday. The evidence we have is lacking. Given that we’re talking about something that existed billions of years ago, that we can only reconstruct it from the evidence we can find in existing organisms (which have been through billions of years of evolution) I can’t think why you’d expect us to be able to reconstruct it. For comparison we don’t know what year Jesus was born or died - events far closer in time and far more likely to leave evidence we could use.
quote:
Finally, I did take some time to look at nested hierarchies. These are virtually identical to the product offerings of a diversified manufacturer of, say, power tools-appliances-outdoor equipment. Products are broken down into categories and sub-categories with each category/sub-category sharing functional and component commonalities, with as much component and function sharing across the product population as possible, partly for efficiency but mostly because if you come up with a good feature you want to apply and re-use it as much as possible.
As others have pointed out this is not true. To add to the evidence I submit Niles Eldredge’s study of cornets
™ Version 4.2
